Difference between revisions of "Elong-13-09-24"

From HallCWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: ==Comparing dAzz between x<0.75 and x>0.75== There was a minor rates issue that occurred, not in the statistics, but in the maximum rate for past plots. They're all of the correct order o...)
 
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Comparing dAzz between x<0.75 and x>0.75==
 
==Comparing dAzz between x<0.75 and x>0.75==
  
There was a minor rates issue that occurred, not in the statistics, but in the maximum rate for past plots. They're all of the correct order of magnitude, but off by about 10% or so. It was causing the rates in the Rates plot (which was separated from the statistical uncertainty, which was correct) to come out slightly higher than they should have been. This has been corrected.
+
Looking at the newest Azz rates plot, that we can get those statistics from a week-long measurement almost seems too good to be true. As a check, I've compared it a bit more closely to what we did for the b1 proposal.
  
 +
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; border-collapse:collapse;" border="1"
 +
! colspan="3" | $A_{zz}$ !! !! colspan="3" | $b_1$
 +
|-
 +
| colspan="3" | [[Image:2013-09-25-Azz.png|500px]] || ||  colspan="3" | [[Image:2013-09-25-b1-final.png|500px]]
 +
|-
 +
| style="width: 50px;" | $<x>$ || style="width: 150px;" |$dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})$ || style="width: 150px;" | $dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})$ || style="width: 5px;" | || style="width: 50px;" |$<x>$ || style="width: 150px;" | $dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})$ || style="width: 150px;" | $dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})$
 +
|-
 +
| 0.8 || 4.85 || 5.26 || || 0.16 || 1.42 || 1.90
 +
|-
 +
| 0.9 || 3.56 || 12.0 || || 0.28 || 2.07 || 1.98
 +
|- 
 +
| 1.0 || 3.28 || 0.249 || || 0.36 || 2.28 || 1.95
 +
|- 
 +
| 1.1 || 3.55 || 30.7 || || 0.49 || 2.14 || 1.96
 +
|- 
 +
| 1.2 || 5.15 || 66.7
 +
|- 
 +
| 1.3 || 6.29 || 92.4
 +
|- 
 +
| 1.4 || 9.15 || 99.8
 +
|- 
 +
| 1.5 || 11.7 || 100.
 +
|- 
 +
| 1.6 || 9.26 || 100.
 +
|- 
 +
| 1.7 || 7.98 || 100.
 +
|- 
 +
| 1.8 || 9.79 || 100.
 +
|- 
 +
|}
  
[[Image:2013-09-20-066-w-scan.gif]]
+
It's easiest to compare it to the lowest x point for b1, since that's where the rates are the closest. The b1 measurement has twice the x range and a second spectrometer setting that overlaps with it, and also a little less than half of the statistics, and both are run on a similar time frame so I think that the uncertainties for Azz make sense.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
--[[User:Ellie|E. Long]] 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:54, 18 October 2023

Comparing dAzz between x<0.75 and x>0.75

Looking at the newest Azz rates plot, that we can get those statistics from a week-long measurement almost seems too good to be true. As a check, I've compared it a bit more closely to what we did for the b1 proposal.

$A_{zz}$ $b_1$
2013-09-25-Azz.png 2013-09-25-b1-final.png
$<x>$ $dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})$ $dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})$ $<x>$ $dA_{zz}^{stat} (\times 10^{-3})$ $dA_{zz}^{sys} (\times 10^{-3})$
0.8 4.85 5.26 0.16 1.42 1.90
0.9 3.56 12.0 0.28 2.07 1.98
1.0 3.28 0.249 0.36 2.28 1.95
1.1 3.55 30.7 0.49 2.14 1.96
1.2 5.15 66.7
1.3 6.29 92.4
1.4 9.15 99.8
1.5 11.7 100.
1.6 9.26 100.
1.7 7.98 100.
1.8 9.79 100.

It's easiest to compare it to the lowest x point for b1, since that's where the rates are the closest. The b1 measurement has twice the x range and a second spectrometer setting that overlaps with it, and also a little less than half of the statistics, and both are run on a similar time frame so I think that the uncertainties for Azz make sense.


--E. Long 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)